Do you believe Cohen or Trump?

[bripat9643]

And that's illegal how ??? As long as campaign funds weren't used to deal with clearing up lose ends in order to stop anyone from thinking that they can extort or blackmail the President of the United States while in office, then how is that illegal ?? If anything it's being responsible in protecting the office about to be occupied for the next 4 to 8 years by a person who will aquire that office through the voters wishes for him to do so.

Sorry...but there is evidence and testimony that shows the funds were
A. Not paid by Trump, so were way over the limit
B. Not reported (and in fact intentionally hidden)
C. Made for the purpose of furthering the election chances of one Donald J Trump (also known as the Orange Blotus)

Wrong !!!!! They were made to keep possible blackmailing extortionist from attacking the office of our Presidency if Trump a billionaire business man were to win the office legitimately in which he did. No crime was committed, in fact an act in securing that office from head hunters was the act being committed. No crime there, and in fact after all that has come to light, Donald J. Trump was absolutely right in doing what he did in that NDA in order to protect the office if he became the President.

A crime was committed as described in depth by Andrew Napalitano, a former judge. The malicious intent to conceal campaign related expendiures.
Your saying "nun-unh" doesn't matter.

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

 

[candycorn]

The same thing the Clintons have to do with it...zero. Yet the right wing (perhaps not you personally--I do not know) posters here continuously mention her/him/they

The Clintons have everything to do with it. Who paid for the Steele "dossier?"

Has nothing to do with Cohen; the subject of the OP.

It has everything to do with Cohen. This whole thing would never have happened without the Steele dossier.

Trump wouldn't have slept with Stormy and Ms. McDougal if there wasn't a Steele Dossier?
They wouldn't have been bought of illegally by Trump without the Steele Dossier?

These affairs (pun intended) happened well before the Dossier existed. The payoffs happened well before it came to light.

You've been debunked. Thanks for playing. Next.

Working to protect the office of the presidency from sharks is a noble thing.

Trump did just that, and it worked. Could you imagine if he would have become president first ?? No telling who he might have been threatened by (oh wait the Demon-crats are doing a fine job of it on their own), the constant threatening that is.

Is the whitehouse under seige by a coup taking place, and this by various groups attempting to implement such a thing over Trump winning an election for just 4 years for starters ??

All of this happened to the campaign; not the President or the office of the presidency. You're 100 miles off topic.

 

[candycorn]

Sorry...but there is evidence and testimony that shows the funds were
A. Not paid by Trump, so were way over the limit
B. Not reported (and in fact intentionally hidden)
C. Made for the purpose of furthering the election chances of one Donald J Trump (also known as the Orange Blotus)

Wrong !!!!! They were made to keep possible blackmailing extortionist from attacking the office of our Presidency if Trump a billionaire business man were to win the office legitimately in which he did. No crime was committed, in fact an act in securing that office from head hunters was the act being committed. No crime there, and in fact after all that has come to light, Donald J. Trump was absolutely right in doing what he did in that NDA in order to protect the office if he became the President.

A crime was committed as described in depth by Andrew Napalitano, a former judge. The malicious intent to conceal campaign related expendiures.
Your saying "nun-unh" doesn't matter.

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

It is when you buy silence (or try to) during a presidential campaign and not report it on the disclosures.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong !!!!! They were made to keep possible blackmailing extortionist from attacking the office of our Presidency if Trump a billionaire business man were to win the office legitimately in which he did. No crime was committed, in fact an act in securing that office from head hunters was the act being committed. No crime there, and in fact after all that has come to light, Donald J. Trump was absolutely right in doing what he did in that NDA in order to protect the office if he became the President.

A crime was committed as described in depth by Andrew Napalitano, a former judge. The malicious intent to conceal campaign related expendiures.
Your saying "nun-unh" doesn't matter.

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

It is when you buy silence (or try to) during a presidential campaign and not report it on the disclosures.

wrong.

 

[Lesh]

A crime was committed as described in depth by Andrew Napalitano, a former judge. The malicious intent to conceal campaign related expendiures.
Your saying "nun-unh" doesn't matter.

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

It is when you buy silence (or try to) during a presidential campaign and not report it on the disclosures.

wrong.

"Nuh UH" is no defense moron

All the principles involved (save of course Trump) have admitted it was to aid Trump's election chances

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry...but there is evidence and testimony that shows the funds were
A. Not paid by Trump, so were way over the limit
B. Not reported (and in fact intentionally hidden)
C. Made for the purpose of furthering the election chances of one Donald J Trump (also known as the Orange Blotus)

Wrong !!!!! They were made to keep possible blackmailing extortionist from attacking the office of our Presidency if Trump a billionaire business man were to win the office legitimately in which he did. No crime was committed, in fact an act in securing that office from head hunters was the act being committed. No crime there, and in fact after all that has come to light, Donald J. Trump was absolutely right in doing what he did in that NDA in order to protect the office if he became the President.

A crime was committed as described in depth by Andrew Napalitano, a former judge. The malicious intent to conceal campaign related expendiures.
Your saying "nun-unh" doesn't matter.

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

LOL well you are as usual reliably parroting Lying Donald.

Cohen and the parent company of the National Enquirer have both admitted they were expenditures specifically intended to affect the election.

But sure- just keep parroting what your Dear Leader tells you to parrot.

LOL

 

[cnm]

Well, when 'nuh uh' is the only defence one has its use becomes understandable.

 

[Care4all]

Its actually a moot point since there really wasn't any crime committed regarding the hush money payments to the bimbos.

There is absolutely nothing wrong out side of moral character, with paying off bimbos under normal situations.

HOWEVER, if the primary reason these ladies of the night were being paid off, was because he did not want them spilling the beans to the public, because of the Access Hollywood video or the 12 women that said he sexually harassed them during his campaign for presidency, then it would be breaking the law....

-it would have to be the primary reason or sole reason, due to the election campaign....for it to be illegal

here are some of the facts and reasons:

It is illegal for a Corporation to donate money or in kind services, to any campaign.

The payoff to Karen McDougall to silence her, for Donald Trump, by the National Enquirer/AMI Corp. was specifically done to silence her during Trump's campaign. She had approached the National Enquirer a couple of months earlier than her August payoff, to tell her "story" is my understanding and they hymned and hawed over it... until Candidate Trump had won his primary, I believe they were trying to catch and kill her story of the two of them, for less money....but once Trump had won, it actually cost them a pretty penny.

Both David Pecker, (the National Enquirer guy) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump met in 2015 to discuss HOW the National Enquirer could help him in his campaign for the Presidency.... To Catch and Kill any of the women coming forward that he slept with, AND to run negative ads on Hillary during the campaign.... of which the National Enquirer did BOTH.

The discussion was NOT to hide it from Melania... ( I think they probably have a sexualy open marriage or she would have left him long ago....) There are two people, Cohen and Pecker, that have said this happened.... vs. the Don. Not just Cohen.

So, this means a Corporation was donating to the Trump Campaign, with gifts that would help him in the election.... so the National Enquirer/AMI broke the law... but Donald was aware and okay and even asked them to do what they did, and I believe Trump's Company paid them back.... in a back handed and fraudulent way, by paying Cohen for legal services that he never performed, then he paid AMI Corp, so to hide the whole thing....

all of this was dirty, and for the purpose of the election and hiding from we the people, of what was being done.... normally as said, this might have been ok, but Campaign Finance laws have the sole purpose of giving sunshine to we the people, so we can make educated choices and to know where the money came from that donates directly to these campaigns...

Oh darn, the dinner bell for the oven is going off so I will have to come back and finish this and get in to the Stormy pay off....

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

I've never seen such a huge pile of obviously wrong snowflake myths in my life

NOPE.....

The reason Edwards got off, is because they did not believe the campaign was the primary reason... he was married, but was having an affair with her and she and he had a child together, and the payments went over a long period of time and even when he had already knew he was pulling out of the primary.... so even though he was no longer going to be in the primary race, she and their child, was still getting paid....

This is why he got off.... the primary purpose was to take care of his mistress, and to take care of her while she was with child, and to take care of her and their child , after the child was born, and to hide this all from his wife who was dying, and it also helped his campaign.... the campaign came in 3rd place.

The discussion with Trump, Cohen and Pecker did not mention Melania and hiding it from her.... she already knew she married a whore.... and certainly saw all the pictures of him with these other two women... it was ONLY ABOUT his campaign.... the whole discussion of the 3 was about the Campaign... And these were past affairs, near ten years past, not an affair he was presently having...

So it is a better shot that he would be guilty than Edwards, of covering it up for the main purpose of the campaign, thus making it an illegal campaign donation from a corporation.... and Trump's company paying Pecker back is also an illegal donation....

If Trump had made all the payments out of his own money and not his company's, and didn't go through contortions the best mob boss could imagine to cover it all up financially, he probably would not be in trouble at all for it...

but honestly, to me...this all is a side show to deflect from his Russian collusion....

 

[Kondor3]

...They aren't campaign donations, douchebag. ...

Calm yourself, Princess...

...The evidence has been produced time and time again...

Apparently, the US Justice Department, and the Southern District of New York, disagree with you.

...Shit like this is why debating leftists is a complete waste of time...

How would you know? You don't understand the concept of 'debate' anyway.

...They never acknowledge that they've been beaten...

Especially when they have not been.

...They just keep repeating the same idiocies over and over and over.

You have them confused with TrumpBots in this instance.

 

[Syriusly]

Its actually a moot point since there really wasn't any crime committed regarding the hush money payments to the bimbos.

There is absolutely nothing wrong out side of moral character, with paying off bimbos under normal situations.

HOWEVER, if the primary reason these ladies of the night were being paid off, was because he did not want them spilling the beans to the public, because of the Access Hollywood video or the 12 women that said he sexually harassed them during his campaign for presidency, then it would be breaking the law....

-it would have to be the primary reason or sole reason, due to the election campaign....for it to be illegal

here are some of the facts and reasons:

It is illegal for a Corporation to donate money or in kind services, to any campaign.

The payoff to Karen McDougall to silence her, for Donald Trump, by the National Enquirer/AMI Corp. was specifically done to silence her during Trump's campaign. She had approached the National Enquirer a couple of months earlier than her August payoff, to tell her "story" is my understanding and they hymned and hawed over it... until Candidate Trump had won his primary, I believe they were trying to catch and kill her story of the two of them, for less money....but once Trump had won, it actually cost them a pretty penny.

Both David Pecker, (the National Enquirer guy) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump met in 2015 to discuss HOW the National Enquirer could help him in his campaign for the Presidency.... To Catch and Kill any of the women coming forward that he slept with, AND to run negative ads on Hillary during the campaign.... of which the National Enquirer did BOTH.

The discussion was NOT to hide it from Melania... ( I think they probably have a sexualy open marriage or she would have left him long ago....) There are two people, Cohen and Pecker, that have said this happened.... vs. the Don. Not just Cohen.

So, this means a Corporation was donating to the Trump Campaign, with gifts that would help him in the election.... so the National Enquirer/AMI broke the law... but Donald was aware and okay and even asked them to do what they did, and I believe Trump's Company paid them back.... in a back handed and fraudulent way, by paying Cohen for legal services that he never performed, then he paid AMI Corp, so to hide the whole thing....

all of this was dirty, and for the purpose of the election and hiding from we the people, of what was being done.... normally as said, this might have been ok, but Campaign Finance laws have the sole purpose of giving sunshine to we the people, so we can make educated choices and to know where the money came from that donates directly to these campaigns...

Oh darn, the dinner bell for the oven is going off so I will have to come back and finish this and get in to the Stormy pay off....

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

I've never seen such a huge pile of obviously wrong snowflake myths in my life

LOL- you idiot snowflakes keep thinking if you keep repeating your 'theories' over and over it is 'explaining'

Both Cohen and AMI have both admitted to the illegal campaign contributions.

Can't get around that.

 

[Syriusly]

Agreed- both Cohen and Trump are documented liars- Trump clearly is not a credible witness to anything.

But you don't have to believe just one or the other- remember the National Enquirer's parent company has also admitted that the payments were for poltiical purposes.

And given the timing of the payments- just before the election- and that Trump didn't engineer payments years earlier when the stories first came out- it is pretty clear that the payments were very specifically to keep these stories out of the news to help Trump get elected.

And that's illegal how ??? As long as campaign funds weren't used to deal with clearing up lose ends in order to stop anyone from thinking that they can extort or blackmail the President of the United States while in office, then how is that illegal ?? If anything it's being responsible in protecting the office about to be occupied for the next 4 to 8 years by a person who will aquire that office through the voters wishes for him to do so.

Fox analyst Napolitano explains it very well.

Judge Napolitano Disproves Fox & Friends' Pro-Trump Talking Points Live On Air

Your specific question about “what crime” starts at 1:20.

Enjoy!

Napolitano has turned into a Trump-hating douchebag. He's opinion isn't worth the bandwidth used to broadcast it.

Oh…that is why he is on Fox.

So the Republican Mueller has turned
The Republican Napolitao has turned
Cohen has turned
Manafort has turned
Flynn has turned
Papadopolous has turned
The douche who ran the Enquirer has turned

How long until you turn? Or will you “take a bullet” for Trump?

All turning under pressure, just like anyone will do if threatened by things unrelated to an investigation. Is Mueller the equal to a leg breaker only in a mental sense ????

Thought the squimish Demon-crat's were weak stomached about torture by American's, yet here they are cheering it on in this Mueller probe/witch Hunt to hang/lynch one Donald Trump. Well I'll be darned, you don't say (hypocrisy at it's finest again). LOL

Wow- I thought the Trumpkins couldn't stoop any lower- but comparing water boarding to the FBI using the same tactic on a priveleged white man that is used daily by police and the FBI around the country on hundreds of people.......yeah hypocrisy is at its finest whenever we watch you Trumpkins parrot whatever your Dear Leader tells you.

 

[candycorn]

A crime was committed as described in depth by Andrew Napalitano, a former judge. The malicious intent to conceal campaign related expendiures.
Your saying "nun-unh" doesn't matter.

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

It is when you buy silence (or try to) during a presidential campaign and not report it on the disclosures.

wrong.

ok

Strange you would start a thread like this then when you say such activity isn't a crime...

Obama tried to get Rev Wright to stay quiet 'by paying him $150,000 during the 2008 campaign'

Then you follow it up with the word "illegal" to describe the payment in the same thread....

It's a contribution, asshole. That makes it actually illegal

So which is it: illegal or legal?

 

[Care4all]

Both have told different stories to different people. Neither are trustworthy imo.
Cohen imo is not a credible witness.

Agreed- both Cohen and Trump are documented liars- Trump clearly is not a credible witness to anything.

But you don't have to believe just one or the other- remember the National Enquirer's parent company has also admitted that the payments were for poltiical purposes.

And given the timing of the payments- just before the election- and that Trump didn't engineer payments years earlier when the stories first came out- it is pretty clear that the payments were very specifically to keep these stories out of the news to help Trump get elected.

And that's illegal how ??? As long as campaign funds weren't used to deal with clearing up lose ends in order to stop anyone from thinking that they can extort or blackmail the President of the United States while in office, then how is that illegal ?? If anything it's being responsible in protecting the office about to be occupied for the next 4 to 8 years by a person who will aquire that office through the voters wishes for him to do so.

Sorry...but there is evidence and testimony that shows the funds were
A. Not paid by Trump, so were way over the limit
B. Not reported (and in fact intentionally hidden)
C. Made for the purpose of furthering the election chances of one Donald J Trump (also known as the Orange Blotus)

Wrong !!!!! They were made to keep possible blackmailing extortionist from attacking the office of our Presidency if Trump a billionaire business man were to win the office legitimately in which he did. No crime was committed, in fact an act in securing that office from head hunters was the act being committed. No crime there, and in fact after all that has come to light, Donald J. Trump was absolutely right in doing what he did in that NDA in order to protect the office if he became the President. That's the way I look at it all.

you are looking at it wrong... the NDA's makes him compromised, and subject to being blackmailed by the ladies or a foreign entity that knew about the ladies...

it makes the office of the presidency WEAKER by hiding it... imo

 

[candycorn]

And that's illegal how ??? As long as campaign funds weren't used to deal with clearing up lose ends in order to stop anyone from thinking that they can extort or blackmail the President of the United States while in office, then how is that illegal ?? If anything it's being responsible in protecting the office about to be occupied for the next 4 to 8 years by a person who will aquire that office through the voters wishes for him to do so.

Fox analyst Napolitano explains it very well.

Judge Napolitano Disproves Fox & Friends' Pro-Trump Talking Points Live On Air

Your specific question about “what crime” starts at 1:20.

Enjoy!

Napolitano has turned into a Trump-hating douchebag. He's opinion isn't worth the bandwidth used to broadcast it.

Oh…that is why he is on Fox.

So the Republican Mueller has turned
The Republican Napolitao has turned
Cohen has turned
Manafort has turned
Flynn has turned
Papadopolous has turned
The douche who ran the Enquirer has turned

How long until you turn? Or will you “take a bullet” for Trump?

All turning under pressure, just like anyone will do if threatened by things unrelated to an investigation. Is Mueller the equal to a leg breaker only in a mental sense ????

Thought the squimish Demon-crat's were weak stomached about torture by American's, yet here they are cheering it on in this Mueller probe/witch Hunt to hang/lynch one Donald Trump. Well I'll be darned, you don't say (hypocrisy at it's finest again). LOL

Wow- I thought the Trumpkins couldn't stoop any lower- but comparing water boarding to the FBI using the same tactic on a priveleged white man that is used daily by police and the FBI around the country on hundreds of people.......yeah hypocrisy is at its finest whenever we watch you Trumpkins parrot whatever your Dear Leader tells you.

The truly sad thing is that the White House spokespeople are largely trying to draw the same types of parallels; message board morons are one thing but officers of the government doing it is another category. Grown people are talking about conspiracy theories, deep states, etc...

 

[skye]

Fox analyst Napolitano explains it very well.

Judge Napolitano Disproves Fox & Friends' Pro-Trump Talking Points Live On Air

Your specific question about “what crime” starts at 1:20.

Enjoy!

Napolitano has turned into a Trump-hating douchebag. He's opinion isn't worth the bandwidth used to broadcast it.

Oh…that is why he is on Fox.

So the Republican Mueller has turned
The Republican Napolitao has turned
Cohen has turned
Manafort has turned
Flynn has turned
Papadopolous has turned
The douche who ran the Enquirer has turned

How long until you turn? Or will you “take a bullet” for Trump?

All turning under pressure, just like anyone will do if threatened by things unrelated to an investigation. Is Mueller the equal to a leg breaker only in a mental sense ????

Thought the squimish Demon-crat's were weak stomached about torture by American's, yet here they are cheering it on in this Mueller probe/witch Hunt to hang/lynch one Donald Trump. Well I'll be darned, you don't say (hypocrisy at it's finest again). LOL

Wow- I thought the Trumpkins couldn't stoop any lower- but comparing water boarding to the FBI using the same tactic on a priveleged white man that is used daily by police and the FBI around the country on hundreds of people.......yeah hypocrisy is at its finest whenever we watch you Trumpkins parrot whatever your Dear Leader tells you.

The truly sad thing is that the White House spokespeople are largely trying to draw the same types of parallels; message board morons are one thing but officers of the government doing it is another category. Grown people are talking about conspiracy theories, deep states, etc...

The truly sad thing is that morons like you follow faithfully fake news ....

That is the saddest thing. Ok?

 

[Rustic]

 

[candycorn]

Napolitano has turned into a Trump-hating douchebag. He's opinion isn't worth the bandwidth used to broadcast it.

Oh…that is why he is on Fox.

So the Republican Mueller has turned
The Republican Napolitao has turned
Cohen has turned
Manafort has turned
Flynn has turned
Papadopolous has turned
The douche who ran the Enquirer has turned

How long until you turn? Or will you “take a bullet” for Trump?

All turning under pressure, just like anyone will do if threatened by things unrelated to an investigation. Is Mueller the equal to a leg breaker only in a mental sense ????

Thought the squimish Demon-crat's were weak stomached about torture by American's, yet here they are cheering it on in this Mueller probe/witch Hunt to hang/lynch one Donald Trump. Well I'll be darned, you don't say (hypocrisy at it's finest again). LOL

Wow- I thought the Trumpkins couldn't stoop any lower- but comparing water boarding to the FBI using the same tactic on a priveleged white man that is used daily by police and the FBI around the country on hundreds of people.......yeah hypocrisy is at its finest whenever we watch you Trumpkins parrot whatever your Dear Leader tells you.

The truly sad thing is that the White House spokespeople are largely trying to draw the same types of parallels; message board morons are one thing but officers of the government doing it is another category. Grown people are talking about conspiracy theories, deep states, etc...

The truly sad thing is that morons like you follow faithfully fake news ....

That is the saddest thing. Ok?

I quoted Fox News analysts to your buddies; they rejected it. Or is Fox News now "fake news" to you as well?

 

[beagle9]

And that's illegal how ??? As long as campaign funds weren't used to deal with clearing up lose ends in order to stop anyone from thinking that they can extort or blackmail the President of the United States while in office, then how is that illegal ?? If anything it's being responsible in protecting the office about to be occupied for the next 4 to 8 years by a person who will aquire that office through the voters wishes for him to do so.

Fox analyst Napolitano explains it very well.

Judge Napolitano Disproves Fox & Friends' Pro-Trump Talking Points Live On Air

Your specific question about “what crime” starts at 1:20.

Enjoy!

Napolitano has turned into a Trump-hating douchebag. He's opinion isn't worth the bandwidth used to broadcast it.

Oh…that is why he is on Fox.

So the Republican Mueller has turned
The Republican Napolitao has turned
Cohen has turned
Manafort has turned
Flynn has turned
Papadopolous has turned
The douche who ran the Enquirer has turned

How long until you turn? Or will you “take a bullet” for Trump?

All turning under pressure, just like anyone will do if threatened by things unrelated to an investigation. Is Mueller the equal to a leg breaker only in a mental sense ????

Thought the squimish Demon-crat's were weak stomached about torture by American's, yet here they are cheering it on in this Mueller probe/witch Hunt to hang/lynch one Donald Trump. Well I'll be darned, you don't say (hypocrisy at it's finest again). LOL

Wow- I thought the Trumpkins couldn't stoop any lower- but comparing water boarding to the FBI using the same tactic on a priveleged white man that is used daily by police and the FBI around the country on hundreds of people.......yeah hypocrisy is at its finest whenever we watch you Trumpkins parrot whatever your Dear Leader tells you.

This will be Mueller's undoing. The coup is officially over.

 

[Lesh]

The truly sad thing is that the White House spokespeople are largely trying to draw the same types of parallels; message board morons are one thing but officers of the government doing it is another category. Grown people are talking about conspiracy theories, deep states, etc...

The truly sad thing is that morons like you follow faithfully fake news ....

That is the saddest thing. Ok?

Not OK

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong !!!!! They were made to keep possible blackmailing extortionist from attacking the office of our Presidency if Trump a billionaire business man were to win the office legitimately in which he did. No crime was committed, in fact an act in securing that office from head hunters was the act being committed. No crime there, and in fact after all that has come to light, Donald J. Trump was absolutely right in doing what he did in that NDA in order to protect the office if he became the President.

A crime was committed as described in depth by Andrew Napalitano, a former judge. The malicious intent to conceal campaign related expendiures.
Your saying "nun-unh" doesn't matter.

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

It is when you buy silence (or try to) during a presidential campaign and not report it on the disclosures.

Wrong.